opentakeoff-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_shape

Remove a committed shape by its returned ID to correct or clean up takeoff geometry.

Instructions

Remove a committed shape by the id returned when it was committed. Coordinates are image px at render scale 2.0: PDF pt × 2, origin top-left, y down (the browser canvas's native space). Sheet payloads carry dims in both px and pt.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "shape_id": "<shape_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_shape"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`shape_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Cutout interplay (#206), when it applies: the parent's cut was reverted, could not be rebuilt, or reconciled deducts were orphaned by a parent delete
`deleted`	Yes	The removed shape's id
`shape_count`	Yes	Committed shapes remaining

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.31Nov 7, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / shape_count / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / shape_count / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.15Aug 6, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cutout interplay (#206), when it applies: the parent's cut was reverted, could not be rebuilt, or reconciled deducts were orphaned by a parent delete",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.2Jul 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "description": "The removed shape's id",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "shape_count": {
+      "description": "Committed shapes remaining",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "deleted",
+    "shape_count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that deletion is irreversible, what happens to dependent measurements or annotations, what occurs with an unknown id, or whether permissions are required. Instead it spends two of three sentences on render-scale coordinate conventions that are irrelevant to a delete-by-id call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Only the opening sentence serves the operation; the coordinate-space sentences (px at render scale 2.0, PDF pt conversion, origin, sheet payload dims) do not affect a delete by id and read as residue from a measurement tool's description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but a destructive, unannotated mutation still needs the description to cover irreversibility and failure modes. The included coordinate details are off-topic rather than completing the picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an undescribed string. The description partially compensates by saying the id is 'returned when it was committed', establishing provenance, but gives no format, example, or validity constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a specific verb (Remove) and resource (a committed shape) plus the identifier to use. It is clearly separable from siblings like edit_shape and list_shapes by the word 'remove', though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies when to use it by tying the operation to the id 'returned when it was committed', which tells the agent where the argument comes from. It gives no guidance on when to delete versus edit, no prerequisites, and no warning about irreversibility.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server